Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Inflectra Rapise vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Inflectra Rapise
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
23rd
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (30th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (9th), Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Inflectra Rapise is 0.1%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.9%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

WIllWorley - PeerSpot reviewer
The tool needs to improve in the areas of security, though it is a versatile product
Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability. I spoke with Inflectra's executive account rep on the need to expand the tool's ability. The problem with Inflectra Rapise is that a lot of companies are still using SAP GUI. Inflectra has no intention of building Rapise in a way that allows it to interact with SAP GUI. Inflectra Rapise has very limited value for the companies I work with because they they still use SAP GUI since their top priority is SAP testing, and they want to get into automation, for which they need a tool that cannot only used to automate processes, but can also do end-to-end testing where you are not only using SAP GUI, but you are using the interface with old legacy systems that are still in use or with today's more modern technologies. In the future, the tool needs to increase its versatility. If I am at a company that uses 23 different technologies, like .NET Visual Basic, Oracle, SQL, or whatever, Inflectra Rapise needs to be made as a product that is an out-of-the-box usable tool for any technology.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It's pretty straightforward to set up."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility."
"We always use the product for end-to-end automation test cases."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The product has many features."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
 

Cons

"The maintenance is very difficult. We've only been using the platform for three months, so I'm not sure if that will continue, but right now it's an observation I've had."
"Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability."
"It would be good if there could be more integration of Inflectra Rapise, since not all customers use the same tool for test management and automation integration."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means very good pricing."
"We pay no more than $50 annually for support of each one of the licenses."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
32%
Government
19%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Inflectra Rapise?
The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Inflectra Rapise?
I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means very good pricing.
What needs improvement with Inflectra Rapise?
Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability. I spoke with Inflectra's executive account rep on the need to expand the tool's ability. The problem with Inflectra Rapise is that a lot of companies a...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Also Known As

Rapise
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

- Soflab - RegEd - Intel - US Government
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Inflectra Rapise vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.